Warped Roulette, Card Counting or any other Advantage Play...is it fair?

" Mister? C'mon, buzz =) "

Paigowdan says all people in security must be addressed as Mister !

Quote: buzzpaff

" Mister? C'mon, buzz =) "

Paigowdan says all people in security must be addressed as Mister !

That knock to the head must've made me too reasonable in your eyes. I need to get more uppity and highfalutin' to regain my title of Sheriff ;)

Quote: Face

That knock to the head must've made me too reasonable in your eyes. I need to get more uppity and highfalutin' to regain my title of Sheriff ;)

Sheriff is any jerk with a badge. Very few people do I hold in enough esteem to be called " MISTER "

Dan,

If you equate the house advantage to a fee for offering their services to a player of a particular game, then I'm curious to know what your thoughts are on offering a place bet of a 6 and 8 versus offering a bet on the Big 6 / Big 8. Is the casino under the "moral obligation" NOT to take the bet on the Big 6 / Big 8 when the edge on those bets are higher than those on making place bets on the same numbers OR is it the player's obligation to learn which bets are in his favor and which ones are not? It seems that is this case the player is at a disadvantage (for not knowing the game) yet casinos take this bet all day, every day, and don't seem to be under any "moral obligation" to return the player's money to him OR to inform him that he's only allowed to make place bets on these two numbers. Your thoughts?

Quote: buzzpaff

I walk up to an empty BJ table and Paigowdan is the dealer. I bet $100 on 3 spots. It is a SD pitch game. Dan gets an Ace up, and asks if I want insurance. He even tells me I can look at all 3 hands before deciding. All 6 of my cards are little ones.
You do not have to be a counter to know the odds are in my favor if I take insurance.
But if I do, I am cheating per DAN.
REALLY !!!
Dan answered everything else, but this question. I doubt he overlooked it. ????

Since Buzz is so anxious for me to answer this, allow me to do so for him:
I have no problem, zero problem at all, with a player looking at all three hands before deciding to take insurance. As a dealer, I remind people all the time to look at all three pitched hands before deciding to take insurance, and am fine with any decision they make. Why in the world should I care? It's a normal game rule I'm happy to enforce. For that matter, I ask for insurance if someone is playing three hands on a face-up Blackjack game, not caring there either.
Full and honest answer here, and I still don't get Buzz's "AHA!" moment about a player correctly looking at his hands before deciding whether to buy insurance. Seeing six cards isn't going to guarantee whether the insurance bet wins or loses, and I don't care if the player wins or not. I care if the players follow and respect the house rules, as per being a dealer.

Quote: Paradigm

This is an ongoing debate in the forum and is seems like it breaks down to this as I see it:

2) What is in question is seeing a casino weakness that allows hole carding, card counting or other methods where an AP can gain an advantage from clearly visible information (I would put extreme slouching @ 1st or 3rd base as the case may be in 1) above), using their brains to determine what advantage this is and altering their play to take advantage of the weakness.

Hole carding is not dealer flashing. Hole carding is taking exceptional action (camera in a pack of cigarettes, wearing or concealing a small mirrir to see the hole card, or having a spotter glimpse and signal the hole card. This is distinct from dealer flashing, which is a dealer error. Secondly, dealer error does not constitute the player's right to money won, as money won is supposed to be based on a clearly and provable clean game, Micheal. But more so, the ethics involved concern taking wrongful advantage that you would not tolerate if the shoe was on the other foot. (An example I used earlier is that if your wife's attractive sister were visiting your home while your wife was out of town, and if "sis" was deeply passed out on your bed - and you COULD get away with with it, would you do it? Many a gambler would.) It's about witnessing scams and shot-taking attempts from players that these same players would be reeling from if the shoe were on the other foot.

Quote: Paradigm

3) Casinos, like most businesses in the United States, should have the right to refuse service to anyone as long as it is not a violation of civil rights. So AP's can be excluded for whatever reason....the fact that they can't individually be excluded in NJ is amazing to me. So be it, close the whole table down if that makes business sense.

Many Players are backed off or ejected for this reason without apology; happens all the time in this town.

Quote: Paradigm

4) Casinos seem to be making decisions (consciously or not) to either fix weaknesses in games, equipment, dealing procedures, etc. to combat AP plays. Their decisions should rest in the economics of the implementation of the "fix". In teliot's APheat.com site, he recently posted several pictures of 3CP games with the old tray 3" high above the table shufflers. These casinos have seen fit not to buy new equipment and if they don't implement the "leave the dealer's packet in the tray" because that slows the game/shuffler down to much, it is open season on them if they get attacked by AP's. That is the economic decision they have made not to fix a known problem.

So Michael, you're telling me if a struggling business cannot afford a quality alarm system or medico locks, or had an employee leave the place unsecured (because they could not afford a higher-quality employee, let's say), then this would legally absolve burglary on that business store, - the argument being, "Your Honor, I'm innocent of the charges because that business simply should have installed higher quality, more expenses locks on their premises...you see, I have an air-tight economic excuse for my opportunistic behavior." I disagree with this type of think, and this type of thinking is rampant against gaming business owners, but not of other businesses, because of the "Let's call them evil, and do it" attitude.

Quote: Paradigm

The same goes for sloppy dealers & protocols that a property cannot seem to get their staff to abide by to keep games secure....shame on them for not spending the money to protect their games.

Ahh, sadly here's the attack call to try to take opportunistic advantage of break-in dealers on live money games...I see this all the time committed against our new hires....

Quote: Paradigm

I tend to agree with Dan on a lot of things, but I didn't like the three examples used in the thread above. I would add the following to the examples to make them comparable:

Restaurants are open season if they are known to under charge for meals based on their cash registers system, they don't fix it despite the fact that NCR has told them there are issues with computations and they get inundated with customers that are paying 50% of the menu price for their meals.

I disagree; if I know that my meal is $37.50, and I read the price and know it, I will point this out to the waiter who charges me $18.75, and pay him the proper $37.50 plus a $7.50 tip. The waiter would probably say, "Yes! That's right, the register was acting up!" - followed by "You know, VERY few people would be this honest, as most would try to get away with shorting us while knowing damn well different." And to this I would say "I can relate to seeing this attitude - I am a casino dealer." I would then take the half-price receipt and give it to the manager, and say "fix the problem."

It's about the willingness to pay your way and your fare in good faith.

Now, you are 100% right of the legal status of this situation. You can pay the half-off $18.75, and even stiff the waiter, and not get arrested. Many would feel proud about doing so, in fact, and brag to friends and say, "look what I got earlier today! YESS!!!"

Quote: Paradigm

Taxi Cabs are open season if it is known that Yellow Cabs meters don't always work and frequently get stuck during a trip and passengers end up paying a lot less using them vs. Checkered Cabs. When Yellow Cab gets murdered by their cost of operations vs. fares they are collecting, they are the ones at fault for not fixing their meters, not the passengers.

Yes, again 100% legal. I pay the meter, give a good tip, and let the driver know the meter ain't working. In the same breath, I'd also report the driver if he tried to long-haul me.

Quote: Paradigm

Transit Systems are open season if....I don't have a great analogy here, but you get the point.

Well I have an analogy here, actually a true story. In New York before 1992, metal tokens were used before magnetic stripe cards were used, and slugs were widely used, and people were proud to use them, thinking they were slick. Few got arrested, but NYC Transit switched to an extremely expensive tamper proof system which inconvenienced a lot of people during the system transition, and jacked up the fares tremendously, giving most people in the City "the economic explaination" for the cost increased, - which was exactly what they deserved to hear.

Quote: Paradigm

It is up to every business, to set up systems and procedures to protect their profits. If they don't and are taken advantage of by members of John Q Public, that is the price of being in business.

Which are passed on to Jhn Q. Public, both with NYC transit, and in higher house edges and tiny comps, in the case of casino operators. Remember, it's the customers who bear what the market will bear, and many customers do a hell of a job by making things more expensive for us all.

Quote: Paradigm

With all that being said, there are going to be people who decide it is their moral obligation to tell the business what they are missing and there are others that feel it is their right to take advantage of the error until it is fixed.

Everybody is in one or another camp.

Quote: Paradigm

That is personal preference and how people operate their lives, but you can't force a person to help other people or a businesses...

forcing business to have the customers pay for loss prevention....remember, a lot of our auto and home insurance is to cover for theft and fraud from opportunistic people....as is our gambling games' house edge....

Quote: Paradigm

in this case out.....that is up their "Good Samaritan" make up and you can't get all over someone for having a different amount of that characteristic than you do. It is like giving to charitable organizations....some folks give to these and others don't for whatever reason. You can't tell someone they are better or worse than anyone else based on their choice in these personal decisions.

Sure we can. We say and think all the time among ourselves, "Goodness, what a decent person she is..." or "what an [opportunistic and selfish] dirt bag or creep that other person is," - all the time. We all say this and we think this based on observing other people's behavior and decisions in action. And I guarantee you Paradigm, the day will come when you will form an opinion about your business partners, your associates, and even your daughter's boyfriend - based on their personal decisions and behavior that you observe. So, yes, we do INDEED determine (or "tell") - that someone is indeed better or worse than someone else by their personal decisions.

Quote: Paradigm

You can't have it both ways, if you think it is the casinos resposibiltiy to protect the game, then AP's have to deal with any and all measures done to accomplish that (barring civil right violations) even if those measures are only implemented towards them.

I'm not asking to have it both ways. I'm just as harsh on cheating and/or slimy dealers and casinos. I feel that all fundamentally dishonest behavior - no matter the source or side - should be dealt with.

Quote: Paradigm

Casinos have to put in place the protection measures they believe are economically sensible for themselves and then not bitch about AP's if they can't combat their angles. Get smarter, get out of the business or take you lumps. What we have seen is casinos making economic decisions to make their operations more efficient (i.e. let's buy pre-shuffled cards) and then complaining when they weren't minding the store.

Yup, fully agree. And COUNTLESS people in the industry think that buying "extrenally certified" cards to be used - without a moment's inspection - on a live money game - was a doozie. I feel ALL parties involved should take the hit, NO ONE is innocent in this one.

Quote: doubleluck

Dan,

If you equate the house advantage to a fee for offering their services to a player of a particular game, then I'm curious to know what your thoughts are on offering a place bet of a 6 and 8 versus offering a bet on the Big 6 / Big 8.

I think it is usury, and am glad that New Jersey outlawed the Big 6/Big 8, and the vast majority of casinos in other jurisdictions threw that bet off the game.

Quote: doubleluck

A more accurate example would be if a casino was offering a discount on the hotel room you refer to. A very wealthy person decides to take the casino up on its discount rate and reserves his room. However, after the person checks in and is comfortably relaxing in his room for a few hours, the casino personnel discovers that the person could actually afford to pay more. As a result, the wealthy hotel guest is informed that he is free to pay for a luxury suite but not allowed to reside in the discount room because he is financially "better off" than the other guests.

No, that's not a more accurate example. A closer example to your example would be if the casino were to go up to the player and state, "The Blackjack Rules have now changed. You may not split, you may not double, you may not surrender, and you must flat-bet, please choose how much you will be wagering per hand at this time."

I'm talking about a refusal of service, not changing what I am offering mid-game.

Quote: Paigowdan

... I don't care if the player wins or not. I care if the players follow and respect the house rules, as per being a dealer.

... you're telling me if a struggling business cannot afford a quality alarm system or medico locks, or had an employee leave the place unsecured (because they could not afford a higher-quality employee, let's say), then this would legally absolve burglary on that business store,

Just thought I would focus on these two quoted points.

(1) Dan, if it is so important to you that players should behave ethically and follow all rules, why do you not object to the house teaching its employees to enforce alleged "rules" that they are not willing to publish to the public as official parts of the game? Arbitrarily and intermittently enforcing phantom "rules" sounds a bit like unethical behavior to me.

(2) I think that most people on this forum object to the fact that you continually compare a player's legal game techniques to criminal actions. If a player finds a legal way to gain an advantage and exploit weaknesses in the manner a casino is operating its games, that is not at all akin to the criminal act of burglary. There certainly are criminal activities that a player might attempt, but please stop describing the legal advantage plays as if the players were committing a crime.

Quote: Doc

There certainly are criminal activities that a player might attempt, but please stop describing the legal advantage plays as if the players were committing a crime.

But Doc, to Dan they ARE crimes. He's vested in the
casino business because of his game, so to him, if
you take from the bottom line, even legally, you're
stealing from his business. You're the racoon who got
into the seed corn. Its not illegal, especially to the
racoon. But to the farmer, you're stealing his livlihood.

I'm aware that it has been taken off in many jurisdictions....but why not in Nevada? Who decides whether it's "moral" or not to take "advantage" of someone who is too lazy to learn the game "for fun"?

Quote: Mission146

No, that's not a more accurate example. A closer example to your example would be if the casino were to go up to the player and state, "The Blackjack Rules have now changed. You may not split, you may not double, you may not surrender, and you must flat-bet, please choose how much you will be wagering per hand at this time."

I'm talking about a refusal of service, not changing what I am offering mid-game.

That's EXACTLY what I was referring to without spelling it out that that is what is routinely done in BJ.

" Seeing six cards isn't going to guarantee whether the insurance bet wins or loses, and I don't care if the player wins or not."

In a SD game if i see 6 low cards on first hand out of the shoe, I have a 6% edge if I buy insurance. That is AP.

I do not have a problem with being backed off. I do have a problem with being called a cheater, swindler, or accused of violating rules I
am not allowed to see !

And you do care if the player wins. So does the casino. That's why you back off counters.

Well, I was trying to find the middle ground on this issue, but I guess I didn't succeed. First and foremost, I really like PaigowDan.....

Here are my responses:

1) I think I used the wrong term out of ignorance when I said hole carding....if you are using a device to see the hole card, that to me is cheating. I should have used the term "flashing".

2) If the shoe was on the other foot and I had a dealer dealing my game on a trial at a property and my game's future was in the hands of a flashing dealer and as a result the players who were destroying my game, I would certainly not blame the players. I would talk to my partner (the operator and say we got a flashing dealer problem that needs to be fixed) If I owned a casino with new dealers breaking in and they were flashing players, I would not blame the players. It would be up to me and my team to monitor new dealers, see the problem and fix it.

Would I be happy about the fact that the problem existed and I lost money until it was fixed....damn straight, but that is on me and my team.

3) The sister analogy isn't really a good one for me to equate to a business not doing its part to maintain their profitability. There really isn't any "controls" in place that aren't being properly attended to in this example. Neither is the alarm and bugulary analysis, committing robbery is a legal crime and I would equate it to using a device to cheat in a casino. For what it is worth, if a struggling casino can't afford to put qualified dealers on the floor and buy the latest equipment to secure games as well as pay for the right level of experienced floors, than AP's are going to count and flashing dealers are going to be taken advantage of.....that is just life in the big city.

I do agree that there are folks that hate the casinos/house and will do whatever it takes to beat them including using devices, capping bets, etc. As an owner, it is part of being in the business to make sure those folks don't beat you. That is part of the business albeit not a nice part.

4) Break in dealers....I feel for them and my eyes were opened during my game trial to all that dealers are put through. It is a tough gig. But so is every job, you aren't good at it initially, so you get paid less to start because you have to be supervised more, you make mistakes and your supervisors are supposed to help you see them and correct them. The customers are at war with you (or so some of them make it seem), there are rude ones and drunk ones and they think they can say whatever they want to you. But that is what you signed up for when you took the job......you need to get better, quickly, get a thicker skin to be in this game. For what it is worth, I don't think I would be good at the job......probabaly get fired!

5) On the half price meal, that was an example.....I would likely pay the full price. In fact there have been many times in my life where a waiter left an item off the bill and I have pointed out the mistake (@ SW Steakhouse it was a $175 bottle of wine....I pointed it out). My point is that a business should not use that as the backstop to lost profits or get upset with customers that paid the bill as it was presented to them. It was their responsibility to get the bill right when asking for payment for the meal, not the customers. To expect otherwise is simply not realistic no matter how much any of us would like it to be. Most people will pay what they are asked to pay at the end of the meal. As far as running out on a restaurant bill....that again is similar to using a device in the casino, not supported by (I would guess) 9 out of 10 on the Forum.

6) The using slugs in the transit analysis is like using a device in the casino....I can't support that.

7) As far as passing on the costs to customers.....that will only be tried by houses that aren't taking care of their poor equipment, training or supervision. And when they try and pass it on, customers may shop prices on them and decide to play at houses that aren't incurring those losses. Bad business plan to try and pass along costs that are in excess of the costs of doing the job well. And let's all agree that some AP losses will be tolerable as the cost to fix them is higher than the loss of not fixing them.

8) Totally agree about forming opinions about people in my life based on their actions and I chose who I want to associate with based on their value system (That is why I get along with you.....ya see we would probably make a lot of the same decisions in these scenarios).

But I have clients/customers whose values I don't always agree with. A select few make ethical/moral decisions that I would not agree with and if it bugs me enough or their actions endanger me/my practice/or other clients, I fire them (you could say "I back them off").

In business I don't need to agree with people on a moral or value system basis (though I try to pick clients & vendors that I do line up with). We need to agree on a business transactions and the terms of the transaction. We need to trust one another that what we say we are going to do, is done the way we said it was going to be done. If nothing is written or said about a particular set of circumstances and it doesn't go my way (because I didn't protect myself in the agreement to cover that contingency), then shame on me and I will get it right next time.

9) On the "you can't have it both ways" comment.....I was directing that at both sides. AP's can't complain about getting thrown out and casinos can't complain about getting taken when their procedures aren't up to standards. That is the battlefield that both parties agreed to be on when they opened their doors to the gaming public or when they walked in to the casino as an AP.

That is probably all I have to write on this one (ya think...). Would enjoy this conversation more in person.....maybe at G2E Wednesday Drinks/Dinner.

Quote: Face

Thank you, Paradigm. I can best explain my stance using, of course, a hockey analogy.

A hockey player.....I knew I liked you!

I only ever played non-check, adult rec. league (so not real hockey, but when you strap on gear for the first time at 31, that is all you got).

Still use BlueLiner as my online poker screen name.

Wish I would have played hockey as a kid but at least my kids got to do that.

Quote: buzzpaff

" Seeing six cards isn't going to guarantee whether the insurance bet wins or loses, and I don't care if the player wins or not."

In a SD game if i see 6 low cards on first hand out of the shoe, I have a 6% edge if I buy insurance. That is AP.

I do not have a problem with being backed off. I do have a problem with being called a cheater, swindler, or accused of violating rules I
am not allowed to see !

No one is being called a swindler or cheater when officially allowed to see his hands by casino house rules for insurance in Blackjack. Players are not approved to count down full deals for an advantage in BJ, and THAT is different.

Quote: Buzzpaff

And you do care if the player wins. So does the casino. That's why you back off counters.

No, I don't, not all all. Players took down EZ pai Gow tonight at the Fiesta for thousands, and I dealt the hands. A Win clean - great for you! Get a 7-card straight flush on a progressive for $300,000 - they'll salute you!
Casinos and dealers care if players follow the house rules and procedures, and card counting is not a part of this approved policy, AND we all know this. make the distinction.

Quote: Paradigm

Well, I was trying to find the middle ground on this issue, but I guess I didn't succeed. First and foremost, I really like PaigowDan.....

Here are my responses:

1) I think I used the wrong term out of ignorance when I said hole carding....if you are using a device to see the hole card, that to me is cheating. I should have used the term "flashing".

2) If the shoe was on the other foot and I had a dealer dealing my game on a trial at a property and my game's future was in the hands of a flashing dealer and as a result the players who were destroying my game, I would certainly not blame the players.

Nobody is blaming the players for dealers errors. But players may be blamed for THEIR OWN actions and responses that stem from these situations.

Quote: paradigm

3) The sister analogy isn't really a good one for me to equate to a business not doing its part to maintain their profitability. There really isn't any "controls" in place that aren't being properly attended to in this example.

Yes there are - BUT people make mistakes and ignore red signals. These casino employees should answer to this.

Quote: Paradigm

Neither is the alarm and bugulary analysis, committing robbery is a legal crime and I would equate it to using a device to cheat in a casino. For what it is worth, if a struggling casino can't afford to put qualified dealers on the floor and buy the latest equipment to secure games as well as pay for the right level of experienced floors, than AP's are going to count and flashing dealers are going to be taken advantage of.....that is just life in the big city.

This doesn't justify or excuse patrons questionable or ciminal actions - and while neither is the business excused.

4) Break in dealers....I feel for them and my eyes were opened during my game trial to all that dealers are put through. It is a tough gig. But so is every job, you aren't good at it initially, so you get paid less to start because you have to be supervised more, you make mistakes and your supervisors are supposed to help you see them and correct them. The customers are at war with you (or so some of them make it seem), there are rude ones and drunk ones and they think they can say whatever they want to you. But that is what you signed up for when you took the job......you need to get better, quickly, get a thicker skin to be in this game. For what it is worth, I don't think I would be good at the job......probabaly get fired!

I love my job, no problem with it. Haven't quit. I know what I have signed up for, I know who I am dealing with and to - and I simply describe some of them and their actions.

Quote: Paigowdan

Since Buzz is so anxious for me to answer this, allow me to do so for him:
I have no problem, zero problem at all, with a player looking at all three hands before deciding to take insurance. As a dealer, I remind people all the time to look at all three pitched hands before deciding to take insurance, and am fine with any decision they make. Why in the world should I care? It's a normal game rule I'm happy to enforce. For that matter, I ask for insurance if someone is playing three hands on a face-up Blackjack game, not caring there either.
Full and honest answer here, and I still don't get Buzz's "AHA!" moment about a player correctly looking at his hands before deciding whether to buy insurance. Seeing six cards isn't going to guarantee whether the insurance bet wins or loses, and I don't care if the player wins or not. I care if the players follow and respect the house rules, as per being a dealer.

The reason for this is that under normal circumstances, the reason to check your hand(s) is pure superstition/risk tolerance assessment - in terms of EV, insurance is a bad decision whatever you have. Insurance can only become +EV if you're counting cards. On a single deck, yes, six small cards are enough to tip the balance, since now the chance of a ten is 16/45, greater than the break-even point of 1/3. (In fact, on a single deck, even shuffled between hands, those seven cards will clear nearly all the hi-lo strategy-adjustment thresholds sometimes, I think.)

Quote: doubleluck

A more accurate example would be if a casino was offering a discount on the hotel room you refer to. A very wealthy person decides to take the casino up on its discount rate and reserves his room. However, after the person checks in and is comfortably relaxing in his room for a few hours, the casino personnel discovers that the person could actually afford to pay more. As a result, the wealthy hotel guest is informed that he is free to pay for a luxury suite but not allowed to reside in the discount room because he is financially "better off" than the other guests.

A better yet example is a clever person, his wealth irrelevant, finding a way to combine discounts to get a hotel room not only for free, but with a rebate. The hotel, as you'd expect, makes rules about combining discounts to prevent this, but can't perfectly enforce them, and a cost/benefit analysis shows it's more profitable to keep the discounts as they are and just go after the tricky ones. The ones who are caught then go around insisting the hotel is just punishing intelligence and paint themselves as crusaders for individualism, and attack the hotel as a gang of crooks as they gush about the amenities they refuse to pay for.

Is it fair?

Heck, the only relevant question is: Is it profitable? Ain't nobody in Vegas gonna never care 'bout what Saint Peter thinks of you!

Marked cards, a braked wheel, loaded dice, naked ladies to distract dealers, "cover" techniques, if a player can drink like a fish, he doesn't have to disclose this to the dealers... and if one is particularly susceptible to being downwind of the cork, the casino does not offer a rebate.

If the casino can put you in jail they will do it.

If you can put them in the poorhouse, you will do it.

Is it fair? That is a question for a weatherman or some dinky philosopher sitting on a cushion in Malibu.

Quote: EvenBob

What about the casinos greed, Dan, that thats so
thick in the air of every casino you can smell it.

Years ago, when I checked in to a hotel room at a casino in Carson City, they offered me a coupon book which included a coupon for a free drink at the bar. So I took the coupon to the bar and ordered a Sierra Nevada beer. The bartender explained that there was a 50 cent surcharge on Sierra Nevada beer! Ha, that cracks me up! Sure, it's Carson City, not Bellagio. But it still seemed so gauche, rude, and pointless. Honor the coupon, you fools.

Yeah, casinos are greedy. But it's hard to argue with a straight face that the casinos are greedier than the oil companies, the car dealers, et cetera et cetera. And frankly, I find casino greed far less offensive than bank greed. If you really wanted to boycott casinos for the rest of your life, you could do it. But it's a lot tougher ridding your life of banks.

Quote: FleaStiff

Is it fair?

Heck, the only relevant question is: Is it profitable? Ain't nobody in Vegas gonna never care 'bout what Saint Peter thinks of you!

And neither do I. But I care what I think of me.

Quote: Fleastiff

Marked cards, a braked wheel, loaded dice, naked ladies to distract dealers, "cover" techniques, if a player can drink like a fish, he doesn't have to disclose this to the dealers... and if one is particularly susceptible to being downwind of the cork, the casino does not offer a rebate.

If he doesn't disclose, they'll find out what's up.
You ask for a drink, you get a drink, as you expect, - and you'll be damn pissed if denied.

Quote: Fleastiff

If the casino can put you in jail they will do it.

They should do it if it is warranted. No apologies.

Quote: Fleastiff

If you can put them in the poorhouse, you will do it.

You spend your money as you see fit, nobody else.

Quote: Fleastiff

Is it fair? That is a question for a weatherman or some dinky philosopher sitting on a cushion in Malibu.

Is it fair? If you don't think something is fair in a casino, I guarantee it, you'll question it.

Paigowdan is still pretending that using your brain to maximize your EV completely inside the rules of a game is unethical because the casino doesn't like it. Please don't recite your rule against counting nonsense, which has already been defeated in this thread with the insurance example (what is the ethical difference between narrowing a house edge and defeating it?). Casino staff whims are not the ethical bellweather.

" Quote: Fleastiff
If the casino can put you in jail they will do it.


They should do it if it is warranted. No apologies. "


FLEA If you can't do the time, Don't do the crime .

Gee, I wonder id Dan has a pair of handcuffs of a counter if the Policeman forgets his LOL

Quote: bbvk05

Paigowdan is still pretending that using your brain to maximize your EV completely inside the rules of a game is unethical because the casino doesn't like it. Please don't recite your rule against counting nonsense, which has already been defeated in this thread with the insurance example (what is the ethical difference between narrowing a house edge and defeating it?). Casino staff whims are not the ethical bellweather.

My insurance example tries to illustrate that counting just a little is like being just a little pregnant. CAN"T HAPPEN.

Quote: bbvk05

Casino staff whims are not the ethical bellweather.

That is correct. Casino staff whims can determine whether you play at all, how you play, etc. but they will never determine anything about the manner in which you should play. An aggressive sweat the money joint that backs off low level players is not going to be interested in hearing anything about ethical issues of card counting or anything about the practical economic aspects of card counting. Some places just show you the door! It neither proves nor disproves anything about ethics.

Quote: bbvk05

Paigowdan is still pretending that using your brain to maximize your EV completely inside the rules of a game is unethical because the casino doesn't like it. Please don't recite your rule against counting nonsense, which has already been defeated in this thread with the insurance example (what is the ethical difference between narrowing a house edge and defeating it?). Casino staff whims are not the ethical bellweather.

1. Casino Management's decisions on loss prevention are not whims; for that matter, neither are those of electronic store chains, movie distributors, food service outfits, and the like. Loss Prevention techniques are an ethic basis, - as it stops others from being unethical, and only the unethical don't like it or haven't really figured out how the game really works.

2. Counting non-sense? Getting backed off, 86-ed, or placed in the Black Book (now actually a surveillance network) is serious and is not nonsense; it is stupid, and is indicative of a brain not used effectively as it gets no good results. (Now please tell us all here about your wonderful AP career of making $100,000 a month and getting comped rooms at Caesars, like in the movie "21.") It is also nonsense to think that unapproved AP play is viable long term approach to gaming, as that drives up expenses for all, decreases good game rules, and drives up house edges on all games for the sake of a few selfish people who falsely think that they are somehow doing something righteous when they are doing something selfish. (the "David and Goliath" justification).

3. No, indeed use your brain.
Strategy is fine: If you are dealt AKJJ774, play as AK / JJ774, - and NOT as 77 / JJAK4; split 8's in BJ, etc. And to bbk, there is a difference between maximizing house edge to the game's approved mathematical limit as per its design in field use, and using illicit techniques in violation of house rules to breach that limit.

If your brain says "I'm doing something that is of benefit," and it is not, your brain is a model T and not a Ferrari. Ending up barred and in the black book, 86'ed out of the joint, or backed off is not a smart result for a casino player. This is unarguable.

Ask any former AP players if it really were a viable career or even option to take, - and they'll tell you they now work for the casino operators and game distributors as anything from pitchmen to corporate math analysts who now provide game protection.

Quote: buzzpaff

My insurance example tries to illustrate that counting just a little is like being just a little pregnant. CAN"T HAPPEN.

Your blackjack insurance example was a nonsense argument. Looking at your hands before taking insurance is NOT "being a little bit pregnant," it is not pregnant at all; it is not anything illicit to look at your hands when the dealer calls for insurance and asks you to do so. The floorman AND dealer will say, "You may look at your hands before deciding to take insurance; in fact, you should." Lord knows I do when I play blackjack, and I am considered a casino cop. It is raising and lowering your bet in parallel with the count that is the problem maneuver. Sure, some more advanced insurance plays tip off surveillance as to whether or not you're an AP player. But NOT looking at your cards before making your insurance decision may imply that you already know the count, and are counting.

Also, what if you are playing three hands on a face-up game?. What if it were on a CSM continuous shuffler? I suppose Buzz will ask for a freakin' blindfold then, just trying to show up ol' Dan.

Quote: buzzpaff

" Quote: Fleastiff
If the casino can put you in jail they will do it.


They should do it if it is warranted. No apologies. "


FLEA If you can't do the time, Don't do the crime .

Gee, I wonder id Dan has a pair of handcuffs of a counter if the Policeman forgets his LOL

No. I notify floor, they notify surveillance, and if there's a problem, the TGD and security are notified, if needed. And it results in a "friendly tap on the shoulder" for the individual: Sir, your Blackjack play is just too excellent for us....perhaps you would like to play some craps also, or go to our very fine steak house...." I'm sure you envision scenes from the Wild Wild West or Gunsmoke, but it is really very genteel....

" Sir, your Blackjack play is just too excellent for us....perhaps you would like to play some craps also, or go to our very fine steak house.. "

Now if only Dan would stop referring to me as a cheater, swindler or non-felon, I would have to admit he is indeed honest.
As far as i know , there is no known cure for honesty. That really frustrates me. LOL

Huh? A scenario where a pit boss is offering a card counter a steak house dinner, to get him off of a game is somehow calling you a cheater...explain that to me. (This is called, "the last of your comps...." BTW)

Buzz, I'm not referring to you as a cheater, now, - perhaps something else....

" Buzz, I'm not referring to you as a cheater, now, - perhaps something else.... "

If you post that " something else ", be aware of the increased number of suspensions since the WIZ has gone over to the DARK SIDE.

I am aware every time I start to post what I think of your attitude toward counters.

I doubt even the original plates from the POPE mobile would give me immunity from suspension. LOL

Quote: buzzpaff

" Buzz, I'm not referring to you as a cheater, now, - perhaps something else.... "

If you post that " something else ", be aware of the increased number of suspensions since the WIZ has gone over to the DARK SIDE.

I am aware every time I start to post what I think of your attitude toward counters.

I doubt even the original plates from the POPE mobile would give me immunity from suspension. LOL

1. Buzz, that something else is that "you wear you heart on your sleeve," as do I. And many here, for that matter.

2. As far as I am concerned, Mike S. has become very enlightened and Buddhavistic individual in support of fine gaming with LVS. God bless him.

Thanks for the 3 dog night link. As a kid we had the power turned off for a few days one winter for non-payment.
I learned the true meaning of 3 dog night then. LOL

Been there myself, I tell you Buzz.
I made do with some candles, a bottle of wine, and a lady. I will say that two warm boobs beat three warm dogs. :)
for me, that had meaning.

Bottle of wine and a lady reminds me of a supposedly true story. The guy swore it was true. He was a cop who moonlighted with a PI.
Woman wanted he husband tailed and he reported to her, hubby was in motel with another woman. She came to location, paid him, and in her purse he saw a gun.

She said he could come in and watch and explained why she had a gun. Hubby was sound sleeper after sex, she woke up his new
girlfriend, told her to get dressed quietly. With gun pointed at her, she did as told. Then the wife got undressed and got into bed with hubby. Cop took gun with him just to be on safe side.

Did the hubby have a brain anuerism when he woke up in the am ??? ROFLMAO

Quote: Paigowdan

1. Casino Management's decisions on loss prevention are not whims; for that matter, neither are those of electronic store chains, movie distributors, food service outfits, and the like. Loss Prevention techniques are an ethic basis, - as it stops others from being unethical, and only the unethical don't like it or haven't really figured out how the game really works.

The enactment and enforcement of these 'rules' are completely based on whims. That is why EVERY SINGLE CASINO and shift at every casino enforces it differently and at different times against different people.

And you are demonstrating the whimsical nature of the decisions by distinguishing between counting that is okay (insurance example) with counting that is not okay (counting down a shoe). Why is narrowing the house edge any different than defeating it? Because the casino will do something about it if you defeat it. It isn't ethics.

Quote: Paigowdan

2. Counting non-sense? Getting backed off, 86-ed, or placed in the Black Book (now actually a surveillance network) is serious and is not nonsense; it is stupid, and is indicative of a brain not used effectively as it gets no good results. (Now please tell us all here about your wonderful AP career of making $100,000 a month and getting comped rooms at Caesars, like in the movie "21.") It is also nonsense to think that unapproved AP play is viable long term approach to gaming, as that drives up expenses for all, decreases good game rules, and drives up house edges on all games for the sake of a few selfish people who falsely think that they are somehow doing something righteous when they are doing something selfish. (the "David and Goliath" justification).

You entire argument presupposes that optimal play is limited to basic strategy. That is pretty stupid stuff coming from what is obviously a pretty smart guy.

My point is that your 'rule against counting' position is bullshit because it isn't a rule on file with any gaming commission, published on any wall or card, or any ACTUAL rule of the game that is offered. It is also outside of the class of the rules that can be regulated, because it is contained mentally. Just because a casino will kick you out for doing it effectively does not make counting actually barred by game rule. The point here is that I agree to play a game by its published rules, and I care not if the casino is successful in what they intend. If a casino wants to defeat counting then CSMs, flat betting, rules against spreading, and hundreds of other things can defeat it. Instead, they continue to offer a game that is EV+ with optimal play. I don't judge them for that.

I play EV+ video poker all the time, despite the fact that casino intends to make money on those machines through sub-optimal play. The casino offers a blackjack game that is also EV+ with optimal play. The motivations or intent behind these offerings are not my concern, or ethical problems should I play them optimally.

Despite your hilarious predictions, my AP career is pretty limited. I take advantage of promotions that casinos offer and do very limited amounts of card counting. I might clear $2000 a year profit from activity that could be classified as AP. The only serious win I've had was when an indian casino offered some 99.7% VP and was still giving like 7% cash back comps on that machine. Your ethical verdict?

The money is in poker these days anyway, where I do a lot better.

Quote: Paigowdan

3. No, indeed use your brain.
Strategy is fine: If you are dealt AKJJ774, play as AK / JJ774, - and NOT as 77 / JJAK4; split 8's in BJ, etc. And to bbk, there is a difference between maximizing house edge to the game's approved mathematical limit as per its design in field use, and using illicit techniques in violation of house rules to breach that limit.

If your brain says "I'm doing something that is of benefit," and it is not, your brain is a model T and not a Ferrari. Ending up barred and in the black book, 86'ed out of the joint, or backed off is not a smart result for a casino player. This is unarguable.

Ask any former AP players if it really were a viable career or even option to take, - and they'll tell you they now work for the casino operators and game distributors as anything from pitchmen to corporate math analysts who now provide game protection.

You incorrectly use the word illicit here. If you use one card counting strategy that is okay with you, but if you use another card counting strategy it is unethical because the casino doesn't like it enough to actually make a fuss about it. Sounds like a bona fide ethical system.

" bbvk05 " This is your first warning. Intelligent debate can lead to suspension.

" bbvk05 " This is your first warning. Intelligent debate can lead to suspension.

Quote: buzzpaff

" bbvk05 " This is your first warning. Intelligent debate can lead to suspension.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the inverse

Quote: bbvk05

My point is that your 'rule against counting' position is bullshit because it isn't a rule on file with any gaming commission, published on any wall or card, or any ACTUAL rule of the game that is offered. It is also outside of the class of the rules that can be regulated, because it is contained mentally. Just because a casino will kick you out for doing it effectively does not make counting actually barred by game rule.

In a Bob Nersesian interview, he says his client is
being backroomed for counting and asks the the
security guy why he's being held against his will.
The guy told him he 'committed a gaming violation'.
Nerseian's client asks which violation that was and
security said they didn't have to tell him.

Its the secret list of rules Dan is always talking about.
The casinos think the rules are real violations
and are baffled when confronted by the truth.

Quote: bbvk05

The enactment and enforcement of these 'rules' are completely based on whims. That is why EVERY SINGLE CASINO and shift at every casino enforces it differently and at different times against different people.

No it's not, and considering that every table game situation is different, and requires an umpire's call from a supervisor based on his experience, then it might not always agree with what you the player may think. If you have a problem with this, you actually have three options:
1. Calling up Gaming Control to make a call on it;
2. open up your own bbk's AP casino, and;
3. abandom casino play, - and go the the movies.
I both play and deal, and almost never see an incident that requires a constant floorman's or management's call on things when players are playing a clean game and NOT taking shots. Everyone who has ever worked in a casino or gambling hall will also tell you this.

Quote: bbkv05

And you are demonstrating the whimsical nature of the decisions by distinguishing between counting that is okay (insurance example) with counting that is not okay (counting down a shoe).

Choosing to take insurance or not is simply not an advantage play, unto itself. When insurance is openly offered by the house dealer when he has an Ace up, - you may take it or not. That's how it works. To say that the offering of insurance when the dealer has an Ace showing is some sort of 'card counter trap" is bullshit. He has to do this, and you have to either take insurance or not. This is normal Blackjack game play. If a player is counting, a review is done over many hands to see if the player's bet or basic strategy changes in accordance with the true count. Every counter and casino pit professional knows this, and to say that offering insurance, - and responding to this, - is a casino trap is assinine.

Quote: bbkv05

Why is narrowing the house edge any different than defeating it?

This is very naive. It is because the mathematical specifications and model of a casino game is based on its allowed game rules and procedures, and violating these game rules and procedures renders the house edge mathematical model invalid (which the house depends on), - and so is invalid for players breaching the game rules, and other subterfuge.

Quote: bbkv05

Because the casino will do something about it if you defeat it. It isn't ethics.

If you violate the casino's loss prevention policies that is expected of players and you get caught, then yes, they will do something about it and YOU are the one defeated. And it is ethical, regardless of whether you like it or not. Like I said, if you cannot even function in a casino as a player by their house rules under their radar, then you are pretty much a failure as both an AP player and as a casino player. You go to the steak house or the movies because you aren't allowed on the tables anymore.

Quote: bbkv05

You entire argument presupposes that optimal play is limited to basic strategy. That is pretty stupid stuff coming from what is obviously a pretty smart guy.

No, I said that optimal play is limited by "your best effort" under what is approved by the house and game rules - which they decide and will supervise, and not by YOU, unfortunately, even if you think that you should set the rules and how the game is supervised; ain't gonna happen, and you may run your own casino to find out. Break those rules, and you're off the game. Don't like it, - go bowling.

Quote: bbkv05

My point is that your 'rule against counting' position is bullshit because it isn't a rule on file with any gaming commission, published on any wall or card, or any ACTUAL rule of the game that is offered.

Oh yes it is, BIG time. Casino operators just have a habit of not showing their internal loss prevention protocols to anyone who walks in off the street to ask to see them.

Quote: bbkv05

It is also outside of the class of the rules that can be regulated, because it is contained mentally.

Horseshit. You can watch the detailed methods, procedures, and results of AP game play attempts right under your nose on a live game, with real money, real chips, real bet raising that stem from the actual count that surveillance monitors. If your "Contained Mentally" actions makes your gambler's hand place do certain things - like jump-raise a bet on a high count, or put a dab on ink on a card to mark it, well then, your gambling plans are no longer "contained mentally" now once it hits the felt, - now is it? Duh.

Quote: bbkv05

Just because a casino will kick you out for doing it effectively does not make counting actually barred by game rule.

Yes it is barred by house rules. That's why camoflage, cover plays, false identities and the such are used by Casino AP players (and differentially) casino cheats, and why back-offs, 86-ing, and even arrests happen, ahem. And if you think I'm lying to you, spend some money on a gaming attorney to fill you in on the facts. Or read about some old-school back-rooming; it's because SOME house rule was indeed breached.....

Quote: bbkv05

The point here is that I agree to play a game by its published rules, and I care not if the casino is successful in what they intend.

They may care, and the argument of "Well! - SHOW me wher it was written for me THAT I could not do the following..." may get them to tell you, "no, you weren't allowed to do that, son."

Quote: bbkv05

If a casino wants to defeat counting then CSMs, flat betting, rules against spreading, and hundreds of other things can defeat it.

Which is why we all now see these things...

Quote: bbkv05

Instead, they continue to offer a game that is EV+ with optimal play.

No, it is EV- with Basic Strategy optimal play. It is EV+ with disallowed AP play. And this is surprising an obvious distinction for the casino pit, but not to all too many people on many forums.

Quote: bbkv05

I play EV+ video poker all the time, despite the fact that casino intends to make money on those machines through sub-optimal play. The casino offers a blackjack game that is also EV+ with optimal play. The motivations or intent behind these offerings are not my concern, or ethical problems should I play them optimally.

Firstly, that total B.S. - as the motivations to play is to make money, and to take money from the "evil" casino, -- especially if you are involved in AP play, as this is an absolutely fundamental basis and premise of AP play.

Quote: bbkv05

Despite your hilarious predictions, my AP career is pretty limited.

It wasn't a hilarious prediction, - it was a realistic one: your AP career is pretty limited, if not a wasteful fantasy if you are seriously considering this. And if you disagree with me, then knock yourself out to make it a career.

Quote: bbkv05

I take advantage of promotions that casinos offer and do very limited amounts of card counting. I might clear $2000 a year profit from activity that could be classified as AP.

Taking advantage of casino offerings is smart. If you clear $2000 a year, that's chump change. Clear 100x times that for $200,000 and you're paying some bills.

Quote: bbkv05

You incorrectly use the word illicit here.

No, it is an apt word. Casinos bar card-counting if it is an issue, precisely because it is illicit play. If it were sanctioned play, there would be no cover plays, camoflage, disguise, and what have you.

Question for Paigowdan-

Why do you spend so much time writing these 10,000 word posts?

The most precious resource we have is TIME. You are spending your time trying to convince people
that card counters are cheaters, thieves, and even rapists. The same nonsense over and over.

It's pitiful. On your death bed, will you think all the hours behind a keyboard were time well spent?
Maybe you should take the advice you dispense to others, and go see a movie, go bowling, or whatever.

See ya! Me and my kid are going to play golf. Tonight, I'll be going to the casino to count cards, or as you
would say AP malfeasance and/or AP subterfuge!

Quote: MakingBook

Question for Paigowdan-

Why do you spend so much time writing these 10,000 word posts?

First of all, a lot of my post are three words. Second of all, I answer inquiries fully. Third of all, why do you care.

Quote: Makingbook

The most precious resource we have is TIME. You are spending your time trying to convince people
that card counters are cheaters, thieves, and even rapists.

Never did that. What I did say was that a lot of AP play is involved with malfeasance and that is in bad faith game play, (which is all true) - and then the AP-ers went ballistic, resentful, reactive. Your post no different.

Quote: Makingbook

It's pitiful. On your death bed, will you think all the hours behind a keyboard were time well spent?

No I won't, although you wish. I spend most of my time far away from this board, and seldom thinking about it, really. I am no where NEAR the top posters in either number of entries or in length - not by a long shot. Yet my infamy is legion. The only reason why people bitch about me is because they disagree with me, and can't see my POV, as insane as it is. Clean play? REALLY, now!!....I truly believe this. And that's all right, that's what this place is about - debate.

Quote: Makingbook

Maybe you should take the advice you dispense to others, and go see a movie, go bowling, or whatever.

Do so all the time, except for the bowling. I don't bowl. And the time I spend as a player is both incident-free and AP free, and I still win. So I spend a small minority of my time here. And add in playing bridge and reading books. AND I will say the little time I spent here was time well spent, - fellow member of this forum.

Quote: MakingBook

See ya! Me and my kid are going to play golf.

Maybe we should play or hit a casino. PM me.

Quote: MakingBook

Tonight, I'll be going to the casino to count cards, or as you
would say AP malfeasance and/or AP subterfuge!

Yes, exactly, and enjoy yourself - that's the main thing about being in a casino. It is not about "work" - but about play, and winning without usage of any of my infamous words. Go and Enjoy!

Trust me, You walk into a casino for action, you are 100% fine with me....anything can be dealt with there, it is the place to be....

Quote: MakingBook

Why do you spend so much time writing these 10,000 word posts?
The most precious resource we have is TIME.

I totally disagree with this. Its what everybody
says, so it must be true, right? The truth is, time
itself isn't important, its what you do with the
time. Dan enjoys writing long posts sometimes,
how is it your business to tell him to do something
else? Dan spends his time doing what he likes,
thats what its all about. Just because its not what
you like, what gives you the right to judge Dan?

Its pitiful? Whats pitiful is people like you who try
and make others feel guilty about what they do because
you're so obviously unhappy about your own life.

Thanks Bob!
And...I write the posts that I do because I care. Not meaning to sound all Puppies in a basket, but I think enough about this business to try to express some POV at this here board.

Quote: EvenBob

In a Bob Nersesian interview, he says his client is
being backroomed for counting and asks the the
security guy why he's being held against his will.
The guy told him he 'committed a gaming violation'.
Nerseian's client asks which violation that was and
security said they didn't have to tell him.

If it's the same incident I'm thinking of, $xx p/hr AP guy netted $xxx,xxx in damages as a result.

Quote: Face

If it's the same incident I'm thinking of, $xx p/hr AP guy netted $xxx,xxx in damages as a result.

Nersesian had the casino when security said
they were detaining him on a violation that
didn't exist. They don't make that mistake
anymore, now they don't tell you anything.

Quote: EvenBob

Nersesian had the casino when security said
they were detaining him on a violation that
didn't exist. They don't make that mistake
anymore, now they don't tell you anything.

Whether you tell someone you're illegally detaining them or you just illegally detain them, it's still illegal. I don't think it matters what they do or don't say.

Quote: Face

Whether you tell someone you're illegally detaining them or you just illegally detain them, it's still illegal. I don't think it matters what they do or don't say.

They can get away with it sometimes by saying they
thought they saw the guy doing something illegal
and are detaining him while they check the video.

Quote: RaleighCraps

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the inverse

Be right back. Have to look up inverse definition.

Quote: MakingBook

The most precious resource we have is TIME. You are spending your time trying to convince people
that card counters are cheaters, thieves, and even rapists. The same nonsense over and over.

You've said this several times. Do you have a link? It doesn't sound like something Dan would say.